Saturday, October 31, 2015

Dabbling in Lie Detection

Many experts, in spite of selling books, acknowledge  that dabbling in lie detection leads to a specific negative result:

Those without formal training will see deception where it does not exist.  

In various tests, as well as trainings (which have had both new investigators and seasoned veterans of investigations) I have found it to be so with the majority of any given class "seeing" deception where they should have seen the connection of experiential memory. There were two years of seminars held where a minimum of a 4 year college degree was required.  The results were the same.  

What causes this?

Formal training means expansion into the more difficult areas that are not easily explained in a book, or without question and answer present even though many fine books can anticipate questions.  None, however, answer them all, as human nature is simply too diverse.  

Volume --the more exposure to the wide variety found within statements, the broader the understanding. This must be then repeated often.  Even the best formal training will fail without application and rehearsal.  This is where patrol officers and human resource professionals have the advantage:  lots of on the fly interviewing.  

Combatting cynicism and person prejudice

 This is where investigators dig in their heels due to an emotional connection. I found that, experientially, female investigators struggled with favorite music or movie stars who lied, while males struggled with sports stars who lied.  Interestingly enough, in trainings, I have not found much prejudice in political statements, as it seemed rarely did anyone so admire a politician that they resisted training. 

 In the general public, however,  it is very high and comments show the underlining anger, even when attempting to stifle or masquerade  it, but I have not found this much in actual seminars.  The few times it showed itself, it was transparent and it led to "compete shutdown" of the attendee.  One was so acute, that she was unable to complete the course and did not receive certification which her company required.  She literally attempted to reverse principle to fit her agenda.  In a meeting with her superiors later, I expressed concerns about any accused who does not agree with her politically is not likely to be given a fair investigation (civil).  I refused to sign off, so they contacted my superior who had been present for a short time in the seminar.  She refused to overrule my refusal.  The attendee was a non practicing attorney and her repeated quotes of a law dictionary led one investigator to finally say, "Hey, we get it. You're an attorney.  Can we move on here?
She was very intelligent, but terribly frustrated in her career and this came out in the seminar each time she raised her hand. 

She projected that which was bothering her.   We all do it .  We all give ourselves away.  Yet, we must possess the self awareness that allows us to face it, and counter it. 

An investigator wrote:  

"The subject, recently divorced, was belligerent throughout the interview, while the accused met with me at her home, well maintained on the waterfront, and was willing to answer all questions posed to her..."

What did this tell you about the investigator?  Yes, she was going through a divorce and fumed at the destruction of her finances and hated the house she was stuck in.  

Extremely intelligent, she lacked self awareness and could not be trusted in an investigation.  She would find lies in low economic subjects and veracity in high economic subjects.  Training made her worse. 

Unless we have enough self awareness that can be verified through other professionals, we may do more damage than good, and we only discredit the science by our own sloppy handling. 

What's on the line?

When you are deciding if something is truthful or deceptive, what are the consequences of your opinion? 

Did you like leaving your name on your analysis?  

It is much easier to do so anonymously.  When even considering lie detection, we ask, What does the person "have on the line", so to speak?

This is often said about the polygraph practice: the liar is not nervous, as he or she is just practicing, therefore will not have the reaction. 

How would it impact your work if you had something on the line?

What if your opinion meant:

an arrest?

your reputation?

your company's reputation?

your department's reputation?

a legal decision?

What if you so believed in analysis, but your co workers did not?  This is something that is common.  One person in a department or company becomes absolutely hooked on analysis, utterly fascinated at its accuracy, only to be met by skepticism of others. 

For us, healthy scientific skepticism is our best friend.  

It helps us sharpen our work, avoid foolish guess work, and since our work impacts lives, it should withstand high scrutiny.  

In one training years ago, I went through a series of sentences, rather quickly, asking the class of about 25 attendees, "deceptive or reliable"? to rather mixed results...at first. 

A pattern emerged. 

I switched over to only reliable sentences.  

An investigator, seated in the front row, raised her hand, and instead of allowing herself to be counted silently, as was what had been happening for a few minutes, she said, "deceptive!"

I pulled out another reliable sentence. 

"Deceptive!"

Another.

"Deceptive!"

It reached a point where the class laughed as she was the only one 'voting' that the sentence showed deception, and did so emphatically.

She clearly enjoyed her status as contrarian

I thought, "I feel sorry for the wrongfully accused that meets her."

Some in the class had all the requisite books you might expect and more than a few were familiar with my blog and were constantly seeing "deception" where no deception existed.  This is what some experts say:  

read a few books and you'll see liars everywhere even though less than 10% of deception is from outright lying.  

These are those who often find statistics where people "lie" 27 times every hour. 

When we have a written statement, we believe what one tells us unless they give us reason not to.

When a statement tests "unreliable" in its form, it is likely to contain truth. 

*Many deceptive statements are 100% truthful, word by word, and sentence by sentence. 

The reality is this:  even when a subject "did it", it is very likely that his statement has an abundance of reliable material, and that it is only that he has withheld the fact that he 'did it' in his statement or interview.  

  


Friday, October 30, 2015

SPECIAL REPORT: Justice for Hailey (10-29-15)

Statement Analysis lessons available at Amazon.com 
SPECIAL REPORT: Justice for Hailey (10-29-15)

The new book is in the final editing stage.  This volume is only about the Hailey Dunn case and how Hailey's mother and boyfriend revealed, through their own words, what happened to Hailey.

Test: Truthful or Deceptive?

Readers frequently say that they love short tests or quizzes  especially those which require a single answer:  truth or deception. 

Did this happen as reported?

Pronouns are not subjective.  They are intuitive, and as English speaking people, we use pronouns millions of times giving them 100% accuracy, with 100% being "complete" for analysis.  There is no "101%" in analysis.  Those who use figures of speech greater than 100% will reveal their own subjective understanding of "100%" such as OJ Simpson and Joey Buttafuoco.  

Question for analysis:

Did this happen?   

Specifically:  Was the subject (writer) truthful about the gun?   


"...well it was like this.  We went to his parents' house for dinner and he had a six pack by himself so I drove instead.  While we were on our way to the mall, he told me to stop at the Bloom to buy more beer but I told him no he had enough but this only got him angry more.  He punched me on the side of my head.  I tried to steer the car but I almost lost control.  I told him that he was mental and unless he gets help I was done.  He put his gun to my head and told me if I did not stop talking he would shoot me.  I said we are driving so you die too.  He said try me and he didn't care.  I said we could talk it through and he told me he hated me and that he wasn't fooling around and to shut up..."

For formal training, please go to HYATT ANALYSIS

For your business or civil investigation, we tailor training on how to do a legally sound non intrusive interview to weed out those who will bring trouble to your company.

For Law Enforcement, we have Police Seminars, individual training, as well as specific training for Sexual Abuse cases, as the language of sexual abuse victims can be not only complex, but may be seen as deceptive when, in fact, it is truthful.  There is no substitute for formal training, and professionals who have had "101" or introductory training, must have in depth, challenging training.

Lie Detection is hard work.  If it was easy, we'd see the results, instead of the epidemic of successful deception today.

Detectives, patrol officers with hope of advancement, attorneys with litigation responsibilities, Human Resources, medical professionals, therapists, counselors, and others have had successful training as well as 12 months of ongoing support as they move towards excellence.  Those who complete our two year program are not only proficient in Statement Analysis, but apt to teach and lead others.

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Missing Persons and Social Introductions

The unknown frightens parents. They always express this.  

When our child takes his first steps, we squat behind, ready to pounce, to catch the inevitable fall.  As child abuse doctors say, "if he can cruise, he will bruise."

When our goes off to school on the bus for the first time, we cannot see what it is like on the bus, and we fret. 

When she is at her first sleep over, we wonder, we worry, and we fret. 

The moment we open our mouths, we express this, even when we inevitably squelch it, as a gentle form of self protecting denial. 

"How's things today?"

"Oh, everything is fine.  Johnny is at a sleep over tonight, and I have errands..."

It comes out, one way or another, because it is on the mind.  

Guilty Knowledge

When someone goes missing, there is nothing worse than the unknown.  The imagination of the loved one will torment with abandon, and this will come out in the language.  This is especially true of children, or adults with developmental disabilities where self protection is not indicated.  

Does she have her "ba ba"?
Does he have his blankie?
Does he have his meds?
He has his snack every day at 1 o'clock sharp.

When the parent claims the child is kidnapped, it is only natural that we hear, "Are they given her her dolly?  Is she warm?  Are they yelling at her? Is she crying? " and on and on. 

When a parent calls 911 to report the missing child, the unknown is so powerful, that it will break through even the robotic-like questions, even in the smallest of ways. 

In an interview?

It is all about the child.

There are more than a few cases here at the Statement Analysis blog where the reader will be confronted by that which is missing, the concern for the missing. 

This is because the guilty parent or loved one knows the victim does not need anything. 

A single slip into past tense will confirm it.  

I cite a CNN analyst who once claimed a parent "believed the child is alive" because the parent spoke in present tense language.  This is likely the result of a superficial reading of analysis about past tense, and creating a new reality.  It is not so. 

The guilty parent will attempt to keep concentration high, and the speed of processing words slow, using pauses such as "um" and "well" in order to avoid this leakage, which is why the interviewer must sense this and 'pick up the pace' of open ended questions, including, "Okay, what next?" rapidly, to cause the person to move into experiential memory. 

There is a lengthy list of guilty parents who either did not show any empathy for what the "missing" child was going through, or may have only mustered it by using the interviewer's language.  Review some of these cases. 

 Did Patsy Ramsey, while claiming Jonbent was kidnapped, express concern over what Jonbenet was going through?  
                               How about Justin DiPietro? 


Casey?  
Billie Jean Dunn?


Did DeOrr's parents go off on lengthy concerns over what he was going through, or was dad busy praising law enforcement and "ooh and ahhing" over the search and rescue technology?

Social Introductions:

In unintentional deaths, this can become an important strategy for the investigator.  

"My daughter, Sally..." is a complete introduction and can, at the point in the statement, indicate closeness.  

More than a few of these deaths were not intended, though arguments can be made that even shaken baby syndrome is no less criminal simply because it was not premeditated, but I refer to cases where the parent's negligence, or temper, caused an unintended death, and the guilty parent feigned kidnapping, such as Baby Lisa and Deborah Bradley. 

In a case where a good relationship likely existed (rather than chronic neglect which disqualifies Bradley from this strategy), the investigator should spend a lengthy portion of the interview allowing the parent to extoll her own virtues as a parent, and allow him or her to speak of all the examples of love and care, including provision, being there for the first steps, putting band aids on the first boo-boos, and so on. 

Let the parent establish himself or herself in the role of loving, empathetic parent.

Then present the statement and 911 call in which no evidence of such love is ever heard.

This now creates a pressure of imbalance that will require rectification. 

"How can a loving, caring parent be utterly void of concern over what the missing child is experiencing?" is the problem with a solution that is hanging in the air. 

The answer is right there, in the room, and the uncomfortableness of the incomplete problem gives a psychological pressure to be solved.  

It is like walking into a room and without any introduction, say to someone:

"Two plus Two equals?" and you are likely to find a puzzled expression with the answer, "uh, four?"

An incomplete sentence begs for a finish and since it was a technique used in schooling for at least 12 years, it is habitual. 

This is to help facilitate the admission and hopefully will come from the subject, but if not, the investigator, at this point, will say so.

"I know that you would have said much more about worrying about him, but you showed us that you knew he had already died.  You're too good a parent to not worry.  We will now put this together, and give _____ the proper burial he deserves."

When a person goes missing it is expected that the loved one will express concern about what the missing person may be experiencing, as the unknown frightens us all. 

Statement Analysis deals with the unexpected in language, not only what one says, but what one does not say. 

To host a one or two day training seminar, or to take an individual and challenging Statement Analysis course, see 

HYATT ANALYSIS

for training for Law Enforcement, Human Resources, Attorneys, Therapists, and other professionals.

Monday, October 26, 2015

Soft Language and Violent Crime

Do you remember the pizza owner, Rick Jones attacked for being homosexual, knocked unconscious and made to drink bleach?

His response to the attackers was so polite, that I urged investigators on this alone (I had no statement) to re-interview him as his language did not match such a vicious hateful attack.  They did, and the got a confession.  The "hate crime" had already raised $23,000 and stirred up lots of support for him.  In fact, the police quotes showed more emotional language than did Jones, who even went as far as concuss himself. 


"I think someone is using this as psychological warfare against my family," said Jones, who was hospitalized with a concussion following the assault.
Would you call it "psychological warfare" if you had been concussed with a brutal hit over the head, knocked unconscious, had your arms cut into with a knife, and had bleach poured down your throat and then robbed?  
Originally, this led police to something that one officer aptly said:
"It is like chasing a ghost."
That is, until they listened to the language of "the ghost" and he materialized.  

Recall the NY family told to move out of their neighborhood: 

"Attention:  African Americans"

This was soft language and not the language of racists who would have used much harsher language.  I wrote that this was the most polite racist I had ever imagined. 

The home owner wrote it herself.  

"The 3 gentlemen that did this..."

"Gentlemen" is not a word that we should hear when describing assailants.  

Deceptive people do use soft language in fake hate crimes.  You have several examples of this in the past year.  

When it comes to violence, however, it becomes even more noticeable. 

It was just a sentence or two that showed pizza guy was not assaulted, nor made to drink bleach.  

The anger that victims of violence, including those who witness violence (if they feared for their lives, or the lives others--something that signaled increase in hormonal response) causes them to choose words that could condemn them later.  In anger, people use racial slang, and other "my filter is off" language and it is actually expected in truthful statements. 

                     Victims do not like perpetrators.  

Generally, people will connect themselves to the event, as experienced, while deceptive people do not have an experiential memory bank to draw from.  Trauma, even secondary, will show itself in language, consistently, though sexual abuse victims from childhood being the possible exception (which is why separate training is used). 

Ever hear parents of a missing child praise law enforcement for failing to find their child, early in the investigation?  




Ever hear a suspect attempt to align himself with law enforcement describing his cooperation?  When someone goes missing, it is an insult to even ask if a loved one is cooperating, and technically, it is "unnecessary" information, making it very important to us. 



We ask suspects, "How would you conduct this investigation?" for good reason as we listen, not simply for 'sensory description' within language, but an actual connection (often fueled with emotion, which could include overt detachment).

There is no substitute for formal training, and the requisite post study, application and practice needed for authentic lie detection.  

But what of the opposite?  What might this suggest to you, as you consider "fake hate" or "fake crime" reports?  

When soft or passive language is used, it is often an indication that the deceptive person is more concerned with his or her own image than the crime.

Sunday, October 25, 2015

Pop Quiz on Noah Sunday School Lesson

Sunday School Pop Quiz on Noah...
this isn't Noah Syndergaard, either!    

What do you make of this text?


Order can represent priorities and importance. 

Note the change and comment on what may have caused it.  We are looking for possibilities and will post the top two answers we have found thus far.  

With olde English, like a "second language" we can step back and look at such things as order.  Order is alway important and although there are deeper lessons for analysis (see "Linguistic Archeology..." by Sapir for such), let's consider the order for this lesson. 

Genesis 8:15-18 


And God spake unto Noah, saying,
 Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee.
 Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.
 And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him..."

Now, look at it again, with emphasis:


And God spake unto Noah, saying,
 Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee.
 Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.

 And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him..."

What change in reality is represented in the text where Noah's wife is listed after the sons, in the actual departure, but not in God's command prior to this?

What do you think may have caused this?

Put your thoughts in the comments section.  

A Personal Note on Blog Benefits and Policy

by Peter Hyatt


A word to all regarding this blog, as well as commenting policy, article submissions and transcripts for analysis.

First, regarding transcripts for analysis:

Readers should feel free to post transcripts, especially of videos, for analysis.  I do not have the time to tackle them all, but readers with experience love to chime in and get involved.

Please be aware that posting a video link is not likely to bring much in terms of analysis:  a 4 minute video clip may translate to 2 hours of transcription.  If you are serious in wanting an opinion, you must take the time to transcribe, and accept the responsibility of error remembering that an entire analysis can turn on a single mistakenly typed word.

Be cautious!

Secondly, regarding requests for analysis...

Article or Topic Submissions

Simply begin your comment with "OT" which alerts the reader to "Off Topic" news story.  John McGowen is generous with his time and often points out interesting articles that readers may wish to view its statements.


Please keep in mind:  The purpose of these have to do with Statement Analysis, which is why John posts them, and this relation may be either that the articles have statements which the analysis will be interesting or the article has follow up information to a story we have already covered.

Simply make a note of this in the comment section to begin the comment.

Do not be offended that most all readers will be analyzing your comments:  it is what we do.  When agenda driven comments arise, people see it for what it is.  If an issue is bothering you, state it plainly, and ask questions.

Thirdly, commenting policy, errors, and timeliness.

We have up to 4 volunteers at any given time who delete comments.  It is not easy work and it is especially something that has to be rotated, not due to volume, but content.

I apologize to readers who had to read taunting or insulting replies prior to deletion.  It is most unpleasant to read something like this, which I understand, and we do get to them, eventually. The comments run in the hundreds per day, and whenever there is a delay, there is something unpleasant and insulting there.

Google spam does eventually catch up to the influx of ads, propaganda, and general scams (though I am not as concerned about readers getting scammed here, as other blogs may).

Here are some things to consider:

  Hyatt Analysis is now full time, with the hopes of moving from a volunteer staff to full time staff, including analysts.  There is a great need for this work, well beyond law enforcement.

The blog helps the business as it causes intelligent law enforcement to contact me for training or seminars.

Analysis here causes Human Resources to contact us, as well as attorneys, business professionals, counselor, journalists, and, overall, smart people who know lie detection is not easy, and that few are good at it.  We have done not only criminal analysis but:

Litigation Analysis
Hiring Analysis with screening for violence, agenda, deception and personality 
Investment Analysis including fraudulent claims 
Psychological Profiling (interview preparation) 

From here, investigators, criminal and civil, as well as business and social service professionals, get formal training, deep and challenging, and make strong impacts in their careers, for both the public, and for their businesses.  The need, perhaps, for discernment, has never been higher.

It is  troubling to read someone take principle and falsely apply it to fit their agenda.  This blog bears  the business name and we would not want someone to read it and say, "this must be foolish!" and compare it to something like 'backwards' reading, or greatly exaggerated  claims of instantaneous face reading.  Lie Detection is hard work and 101 books and articles are interesting, but will end up in error the first time the analyst is faced with a complexity, such as in the case of sexual abuse, which I will touch upon below.  The "Lie to Me" TV show did not help the cause either, and reminds me of the Lassie TV show (I own the DVD) where Timmy says,

"What's that Lassie, boy?  Mom is at the house and the barn is on fire and Dad is busy eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich unawares that his wife is about to be burnt to death?" all from just a bark.

Lie To Me:  "See that raised eye brow, Senator?  That tells me that you cheated on your wife, took a bribe from the company, and are willing to sell your country's military security for campaign contributions!"

In deed.


How 'psychic' must one be to predict that a senator would have a girl friend, take bribes, and solicit campaign contributions in exchange for military secrets?

Analysis is hard work.

I work with departments and companies around the country and stand on the analysis. 

When one asserts, but does not prove, I ask the volunteers to delete it.  There are plenty of places to go to openly assert an Elvis sighting, but not here.

When one deliberately misuses principle to further agenda, I ask that it be deleted.

When a comment begins with anything like, "You will probably delete this...", it gets deleted.  It's a time saver. 

When one insults another, it gets deleted, as does profanity, racism (the hatred of a race), or those who make hate personal; it is one thing to detest an ideology and another to have personal hatred without a cause.  If someone posts hatred of a person and it is justified (a murderer's victim), it is not deleted. 

Of the past year, hatred towards police has increased and these get deleted too. The usual protocol of respect is standard.  

Disagreements = Growth 

I've not liked all of my conclusions 
Disagreements are useful.  It allows for dialog and especially, given the nature of the blog, it allows for learning.  We can re-visit the application of principle for error.

In the recent posting of a letter about migrants in Germany (English being 2nd language):  Should someone say, "I actually think this letter is a fraud and here is why..." it opens for discussion and is good.  These comments stay and allow for back and forth.

A good example of disagreements = growth is the volume of criticism I received about the DeOrr case.

This criticism was not in the form of direct attacks, but in the relentless posting of the statements and the 'de facto' demand for in depth analysis; rather than 'phoning it in' due to busy scheduling.

I responded to this criticism, though it took hours, because it is a case readers demanded be done, and I respect that.  I was dissatisfied with my own work, not that it was incorrect, but that it was superficial  and my conclusion was lacking conviction. Disagreement spurred me on.  

Politics. 

I understand that a supporter of a particular politician may not be pleased, for example, when I analyze a statement.  Best to challenge the analysis rather than attempt to assign motive.  

Whoever is in the news more often will have more transcripts, thus more analysis.


Fake Hate

Here is a topic that brings out rage and where comment moderation falls behind due to volume.  When the truth is discovered, most readers enjoy this, the agenda driven do not.  Please be patient.  

Controvery 

Regular readers are familiar with my work with rape victims and victims of Domestic Violence, which are, overwhelmingly, female. The imbalance in number means more sample of which to quantify for analysis later.  I teach an entire separate chapter on the language of women who were sexually assaulted in childhood, and I do this for one purposeful reason:

I do it simply because an adult female victim of childhood sexual abuse will use phrases that appear deceptive and investigators must not only be aware of this, but ask specific questions in order to uncover if the alleged victim is using these phrases due to a form of disassociation in her language.  This includes PTSD like symptoms as well as the inability to describe what happened.

This training is crucial to get to the truth.  True enough, male victims are in much lesser numbers, and speak differently than female victims, and much more research is necessary.  Which brings me to my next point on Data Building coming up.

Holocaust Denial

Each week we learn of, on average, 500 people, world wide, murdered due to the specific ideology of supremacy taught from the Koran and the life of Mohammad.  The slaughter has increased dramatically since the "Arab Spring" took place.  

What is different about these reports, current, than past reports is that, almost daily, actual video of these murders is posted online. It is all but impossible for it to not emotionally impact the viewer.  

"Islamophobia" is the term used to dismiss this slaughter, which is on the increase and all here will not tolerate denial.  

Islam is an ideology of supremacy which must, psychologically,  result in violence.  It is not that we have a few psychopaths around the world killing for no cause.  We have that.

We have an ideology that is far worse than anything the Nazis dreamed of, and specifically calls for the deaths of:

Jews
Christians
Secular Muslims
Muslims who have left Islam 
Homosexuals

and it prescribes draconian punishments against criminals and it unequivocally opposes the civil rights of women.

Supremacy itself, leads to violence as it strengthens a corporate victim status.  If someone has ore than me, the supreme one, it must be due to fraud, therefore, the one who feels slighted  must respond.

The Koran teaches that women are worth only 50% of the man, and that a husband should use physical violence to bring her to obedience.  The devaluation of woman in an entire ideology has led to violent suppression consistently.  We do that which we believe. 

How many people die, each month, due to obedience to the koran?

On average, about 2,000.

This excludes actual combat casualties.  This is why it is said that Islam is the only religion in the world that increases violence when its followers become devout.  It is a religion of "coercion", whereas the other world religions are religions of "persuasion" that use reason, charity, and mercy to gain followers. 

It is criminal action, in the name of religion, on a scale the world has never seen, including Nazi Germany, which only lasted 15 years.  This has been an insulated criminal holocaust for 1400 years. 

Before the 2008 election, there were few deniers of the Islamic atrocities but it has become "in vogue" to deny this, with shout downs of "Islamophobia" and Europe is suffering in what is becoming a new anti-semeticism that far exceeds the scope of Nazis.

The Rape Epidemic in Sweden, even when viewed through the deliberate deceptive techniques used on the statistics, makes Sweden the most dangerous place in the world for women, outside of a small country in Africa.  If you "straighten" out the statistics, it may be the single most dangerous place for a woman.  See:  Sweden: Rape Capital At Gatestone for more information. 

The supremacist ideology, criminally, is not something Americans understand, even in the slightest.

As I read, each day, of the deaths all around the world, including the secular Muslims, I am appalled.

In America, we had holocaust deniers in the late 1930's, in much larger number than we do today.  Today, the holocaust denier is looked at as foolish, agenda driven anti-semites.  Yet, today, the murders committed by Islamic supremacists is being denied.  These  comments will be deleted.  It is just too horrific to read of these accounts, see the actual videos, and hear the cries of the oppressed only to read someone denying the bloodshed.

About once a week, a homosexual is murdered and thrown from a roof with a video given as proof.  It is unbearable to watch and must not be denied. 

Every day, a woman is murdered in an "honor killing", marrying a "kaffir", or leaving the Islam religion, just as every day violent protests include, "carbecues"  in Sweden, and women who are raped not only do not receive justice, but are blamed for the rape.  Statements of judges, prosecutors and even the public, are posted for analysis, and at times, shocking, in their blaming of the victim. 

A new psychological term is being heard, called the Rotherdam Effect, where police, so fearful of being called "racist", are turning their backs to those who are raping children, pedophilia, grooming, and so on, which only empowers those who believe themselves superior.

This is where police are fearful of making inquiry or arrest due to being labeled an unpopular term.  

It impacts the UK just as it impacts the innocent mother in an apartment in Baltimore, who can no longer leave her home at night for fear of violence, while police fear accusation of "racism" if they attempt to effect an arrest.  

Europeans are so fearful of this that they are forced to make their own reports, with Germany, for instance, having its corporate media deliberately withhold brutal facts of which citizens needed in order to keep their women and children safe.  Interviews with displaced citizens show, even in second language, the "coal in the mouth" that was popular in the 30's and 40's, fearful to speak the truth.  

The techniques of European corporate (main stream) media are deceptive, and will continue to be exposed through analysis.  

This is a new wave of crime of which deception exists and is so powerful that I have begun a series of articles on it, in a separate blog so that it can be discussed in depth, for interested readers.  

The last point is the most exciting of them all, and allows me, and those who work with Hyatt Analysis, to express gratitude to readers:   

Data Building 

First, is the challenge of analysis. 


Analysis of a public case is published.  No cases with law enforcement are published, and where we work on a case that is in the news, the news story is not published here.  The integrity of the case is paramount.  

When a case is in the news and analysis is published, consider that the actual investigators are reading the analysis.  

Also reading are experts within their fields, some with decades of experience. 

This puts the analysis under a crucible of testing.  

On several cases, actual case investigators disagreed with the analysis. Since they were the ones who knew the case details and the analysis dealt only with words, the analysis conclusion is put to the extreme test.  

This is to produce excellence.  

The analysis, which stayed strictly within principle, and avoided speculation, including the emotional temptation ("straight face test" issues) to rush to judgement, proved to be accurate, in the end, either by confession or polygraph.  Since investigators had the analysis on one hand, but detailed case elements, including forensics on the other, you may well imagine how the investigators consider analysis today, including some who have gone on to training.  In only one case did an investigator "dig in his heels" and refused to budge, though the warning of re-offense was in the conclusion of the analysis and the statement of the child tested true. The cleared offender went on to re-offend. 

Having analysis publicly open to scrutiny by professionals and intelligencia nationwide (and even world wide) is to produce excellence. Some of you have recognized that "anonymous comments" were head and shoulders above the status of amateur and openly opined.  

I have seen the principles collected and articulated from LSI become the basis for all schools of "Statement Analysis", which is like "math", while the application of the principles can vary widely.


Last week, I was interviewed by an NBC  affiliate  KWES TV, from Texas, along with Clint Dunn, the father of murdered 13 year old, Hailey Dunn, journalist Erica Morse, and interviewer, anchor Victor Lopez.  Lopez graciously allowed me to comment on "batting 1.000 due to conservative and diligent conclusions" rather than rushing to conclusion.  This ahead of a book I hope investigators will find useful, as it highlights just how much information is released, even when a suspect appears on television. 

The greater the scrutiny, the greater the potential for excellence.  

Next, this blog represents a marvelous opportunity to gather data.

We are  grateful for the contributions of readership here in ways that the public may not recognize.  

With the two IP addresses, we have had more than 12 million page views, and thousand and thousands of useful comments, including challenges, and input from experts. Besides "iron sharpening iron, it has done something else for us:

It is building data that is invaluable, including "expected" versus "unexpected", which, alone, increases the breadth of a reference point for the English language, post 2000 living.  (Language shifts in case ye hath not recognized its wont).   

We are ("we", includes readership) forever learning from commentators, not simply things I have missed (this is always a blessing) but we are able to study language and compile our own statistics for eventual publication, on how people respond, in everything from counting words, to pronouns, to which topics elicit which responses

 It is invaluable for me to be able to say, "in this scenario, 20% will respond with..." which can only be accurate when it is large scale (whatever that means) and I am privileged, due to the internet's ease of this work, to not only gather statements from around the world, but reactions as we build a data base of statements of our own.  

Although I am grateful for the compilation of statistics from other analysis websites, and have found, for example, LSI's statistics to be accurate, it is exciting to continue this work into the next decades.

My hope is to continue to contribute to the education of those who's work is to discern deception from truth, while assisting the general public in their own dealings with deception and appreciate the criticism, feedback and the opportunity for learning that so many of your comments afford.

Thank you,

Peter Hyatt

Saturday, October 24, 2015

Karen Mackie Transcript on Scam

Thanks to: 
www. strenuusltd.com

Chris Woodruff
Lead Analyst
I have the privilege of working with investigators, journalists, commentators, and citizens from around the country, who I have met through the Statement Analysis blog. Beginning in 2012, there was an increase of information, particularly from Europe, on the increase in violence and crime there, which, depending upon the country of origin, I may be able to do some in-depth analysis, but in second language translation, we must step back and look at only broad strokes, as small nuances do not translate well.

Here we have a transcript where British is spoken, and no translation to English made.

What you need to know is the allegation.

The allegation is the "reason" for the statements to be analyzed. Although limiting information to an analyst of only the allegation and no case details often has a powerful effect, it is not done for such. It is done to keep contamination low.

In recently watching a documentary on Lance Armstrong, I was amazed how it seemed that no one recognized his pattern of deception and it may be that strong emotional connection clouded judgment.

I was a very big Lance fan, inspired by his book, to the point where I not only watched the Tour de France live, but purchased the DVDs each Christmas following the first Tours. The earliest accusations seemed to be French envy, as this is a "European sport" and no American should win it. There were plenty of anti-American sentiments expressed back then, but I stopped purchasing the DVDs when Armstrong began to address the accusations.

Over the years, I have analyzed for deception those who I have admired, or those who's ideology I agree with. In Armstrong's case, I even had my sons read his first book, and telling them that it was all a criminal conspiracy and a hoax, and that Armstrong was not only one who belonged in prison, but had destroyed lives, was not easy, but "truth always trumps the narrative. "

I recognize that this is not popular today as it was in our history, but it remains the same for me, and for the articles and analysis I publish. The subject, that is, the speaker or writer, is "dead" to us; it is only the words that we analyze.

Yet, pathological liars do evidence patterns and re-watching that documentary (its on Netflix) is a very good exercise for those of you who wish to learn.

A budding, intelligent and witty business analyst sent this to me, knowing its value. He wisely included an article, citing how interesting it is to see what journalists add to, and subtract from, within a story.

Those of you who have learned some of the principles of analysis recognize that even the presentation of news articles can use propaganda and reveal their own prejudice and how, sadly, "narrative trumps truth" for some.

Note the article, the transcript, and your thoughts in the comments section.

Due to difficulty in sizing, I have made the article quite large, and the print rather small, and apologize in advance. It is, however worth the effort.

As a detective who's growth in training is progressing at an accelerated pace recently asked, it is important that the Interviewer consider the lack of Reliable Denial and eventually confront the subject with it,

carefully using or quoting her own words in order to facilitate the confession or admission.

Liars will go a long way to avoid lying about their own lies but most only when their own wording is used --it does happen on its own, with the "Why should we believe you?" question, but my record of obtaining confessions or admissions (an admission is a confession sans moral guilt, such as, "Yes, I took the money", rather than "Yes, I stole the money") is strong because I know:

We as humans are most comfortable with our own language. I cover obtaining confessions in the home course and seminar, but again, in more detail, in the Advanced Course.




Narrator
Anyone who thinks financial fraud hurts only your wallet needs to meet victims like solicitor Karen Mackie in Farnham. Her life has been ruined since fraudsters persuaded her to transfer £734,000 from her client’s accounts.


Karen Mackie
I’m feel completely devastated by it. I’ve lost my practice I’m under the doctor, I’m seeing a councilor and um I again very frightened and shaken and chest pains, regularly getting chest pains um because of it and um I’ve had no income since the 3rd of June when they intervened um and we are at risk of losing our house now.


Narrator
Fraudsters called Karen in April pretending to be from her bank Nat West. They said suspicious payments had been made from her accounts and in order to prevent any further losses she had to wire all the money from her client’s accounts to new supposedly safer accounts in her name. Only they weren’t safe and the money vanished.


Karen Mackie
I thought I was talking to Nat West. I had no reason to suspect I wasn’t speaking to someone from Nat West.


Narrator
After calling her bank and the police, Karen contacted her insurance company to try and get some of the defrauded money back for her clients but she got little comfort from them.


Interviewer
Do you mind if I show you a letter you were sent by your insurance company?


Karen Mackie
Yes.


Interviewer
Um when you said listen I’ve been a victim of fraud here and I need to make a claim.


Karen Mackie
Yes.


Interviewer
They wrote to you and said that the idea of any honest solicitor would make 8 different payments of round sum transfers to several accounts is simply incredible and they went on to say as matters presently stand EIC, your insurance company does not accept that you acted honestly. They are basically accusing you


Karen Mackie
Yes


Interviewer
of being complicit in fraud. How does that make you feel when you got that letter?


Karen Mackie
Um absolutely sick, um it’s not true [scoffs].


Narrator
Police have told Karen that they don’t think she was complicit nonetheless the solicitor’s regulation authority said it had to suspend Karen so that her clients could get their money back from a special compensation fund. It also told us that 3 or 4 solicitors were being targeted by fraudsters every week.


As for the insurance company that accused Karen of dishonesty, it’s standing by its assertions.


Interviewer
So, financial fraud has had a major impact on your life in every sense.


Karen Mackie
In every single sense, absolutely.